Article 1399 § 1 of the Civil Code constitutes a rather outdated provision that does not align smoothly with the modern legislative approach to the property relations of spouses. If applied without restrictions based on its literal wording, it would largely lead to the alienation of the principal spouse (E) from their property. This is because it would deprive them not only of information about its management but also of its fruits, to the extent that these exceed E's obligation to contribute to family needs under Article 1389 of the Civil Code. Essentially, it creates a relationship of subordination between E and the managing spouse (D), which does not correspond to the current system of spousal financial independence. In order to achieve a value-based alignment of Article 1399 § 1 of the Civil Code with modern legislative concepts regarding the marital relationship and each spouse’s rights over their property, a series of limitations on its regulatory scope is required. In contrast, the provision of Article 1399 § 2 of the Civil Code, which allows for the revocation of management at any time, corresponds to the specific conditions of marital cohabitation and applies in every case of management, even when compensation or another form of remuneration is agreed upon for D. Similarly, Article 1396 of the Civil Code, which establishes a reduced standard of liability for D, should be interpreted broadly so that it also applies to management between spouses—provided, however, that D is not carrying out the management for compensation or remuneration, in which case the general rules apply.

The present study formed the basis of a recommendation at the 9th Congress of the Family Law Company, which took place on May 17 and 18, 2024 in Patras on "Economic Relations Issues of Spouses and Companions". You can download the study to the following link: HID 2024, 332